12. Приложение: Изъяснение Иоан. VIII:44, X:12–13; Лук. XVI, 1–13 – 13 1432 .

Your father is the devil; and you want to do the lusts of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and did not stand in the truth; for there is no truth in it. When he speaks a lie, he speaks his own; for he is a liar and the father of lies. ... Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own people: for lies is also the father of lies. .... Ὅ ταν λαλ ῇ τὸ ψεῦδος ἐκ τῶν ἰδ ί ων λαλεῖ ὅ τι ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ. The expression “father of lies” is completely meaningless and does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament. We know the combination “father of circumcision” πατὴρ περιτομῆς Rom. IV, 12, but here circumcision is used instead of circumcised, as I conveyed in the Russian translation. And the expression “father of lies” would make sense if it were used instead of “father of those who tell lies.” But in Christ’s conversation with the Jews there was no talk about the Jews as liars; Christ did not expose them as liars. The Greek text does not have the expression "father of lies", it says πατὴρ αὐτοῦ, his or her father. The translators attributed αὐτοῦ to τὸ φεῦδος and understood πατὴρ αὐτοῦ in the sense of “her father,” i.e. lies - the father of lies. But this is an interpretation and the interpretation is incorrect. The expression “father of lies” in Russian translation is a predicate: he is a liar and the father of lies = he is a liar and is the father of lies. But in Greek φεῦδος is used without a member, and ὁ πατὴρ with a member, and therefore these two words cannot be identical parts of one sentence, namely two predicates. Obviously φεῦδος is the predicate, and ὁ πατὴρ is the subject. In Slavic it is necessary to take “father (of lies)” as a predicate, but this word can also be taken as a subject: as there is a lie (verbal) and a father (mean). How should the expression be translated and how should it be understood? Αὐτοῦ must be translated by the pronoun “him” and attributed to the speaker’s face - and take ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ as the subject: he (the devil) says that his father (mean) is a liar (talk). The father of the devil is God, for God is the Father of all created things. The devil slanderes his Father and, being himself a liar, says that his Father is a liar. Christ denounced the Jews for the fact that “they are seeking to kill Him, the man who told them the truth, which He heard from God.” In the person of Christ before the Jews there was a) man and there was b) the truth heard from God, the truth of God (God is true). The Jews sought to kill the man Christ, and they did not accept the truth of God that He told them. Firstly, they were murderers, i.e. they wanted to kill a person, and, secondly, they did not accept the truth of God, i.e. portrayed God as a liar. And in tone and in another way, they turn out to be the children of the devil, who, firstly, is a murderer from the beginning and, secondly, an opponent of the truth, namely God’s truth. He is an opponent of God's truth, because he calls his Father a liar; he says that his Father is also a liar. Is the devil right when he calls God a liar? Of course it's wrong. He is wrong, i.e. a liar, a liar par excellence, the lie itself - he is wrong, because in this case, he speaks from himself (ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλεῖ), i.e. demonstrates self-righteousness and self-affirmation. The Greek words written out above are difficult to translate because ὅ τι equally applies to λαλ ῇ τὸ ψεῦδος and ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλεῖ. When he tells this lie that his Father is also a liar, he says on his own behalf that his Father is also a liar. “That the liar and the Father” is actually a lie, a real lie τὸ ψεῦδος. Let’s put the first “that he is a liar and his Father” in brackets: When he says this lie (that he is a liar and his Father), then he says on his own behalf that he is a liar and his Father. If we throw out what is put in brackets as self-evident, then we get the following final translation: When he (the devil) tells this lie, he says from himself: that his Father is also a liar. For the idea of ​​a lying God in the writings of John, cf. 1John V, 10: "he who does not believe God presents Him as a liar" 44 ψεύστης ἐστὶνὁ πατὴρ), also 1, 10: we present Him as a liar (φεύστην ποιοῦμεν αὐτόν). Grammar of the Greek New Testament language for the translation I propose (see V. Vest. 1904, July - August pp. 591 - 3). Ancient Greek texts (ib. p. 592) and ancient Slavic translations also speak in favor of my translation: “as lies (adj. false) is also its father” (see Bog. Vest. 1904, May, p. 147) But a hireling who is not a shepherd, whose sheep are not his own, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and runs; and the wolf robs the sheep and scatters them. But the hireling flees, because the hireling does not care about the sheep. But a hireling, who is not a shepherd, and the sheep are not his own, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and runs away: and the wolf despoils them, and scatters the sheep. But the mercenary flees, as if there is a mercenary, and does not care about the sheep. Ὁ μισθωτὸς ( δὲ ) καὶ οὐκ ὢ ν ποιμ ή ν ο ὗ οὐκ ἔστιν τὰ προ᾿ βατα ἴδια, θεωρεῖ τὸν λύκον ἐρχ ό μενον καὶ ἀφ ί ησιν τὰ πρόβατα καὶ φεύγει, καὶ ὁ λύκος ἁ ρπάζει αὐτὰ καὶ σκορπ ί ζει (τὰ πρόβατα) (Ὁ δὲ μισθωτὸς φεύγει) ὅ τι μισθωτ ό ς ἐστιν καὶ οὐ μέλει αὐτῷ περὶ τῶν προβάτων. Noteworthy is the strange rearrangement of words written in italics in Russian and Slavic texts, and the Slavic agrees with the Greek. This rearrangement is one of those that causes obvious damage to the meaning. It is not the same to say: “loves children and kisses them” and: “loves them and kisses children.” In the latter case, there will be obvious nonsense if by “them” we mean children and the verbs “loves and kisses” are attributed to one subject. It is necessary either to mean “them” not children, or “loves” and “kisses” to be classified as different subjects So in the Slavic text John. X, 12; “The wolf will plunder them and judge the sheep” must either be understood as something other than sheep, or the verbs plunder and rip apart must be attributed to different subjects. And exactly how we arrange it, the latter is necessary. The Russian translator attributed both predicates to one subject “wolf” and thereby was forced to rearrange “them” and “sheep” - you have: “they will plunder them and scatter the sheep” to say: “plunder the sheep and scatter them.” Otherwise it would be complete nonsense. The newest publishers of the Greek text understand the same (one) proper thing and run up nonsense by discarding τά πρὸβατα with σκορπίζει and it turns out that the mercenary leaves the sheep, and the wolf plunders them and scatters them. But the Russian translator and the newest publishers of the Greek text are doing the wrong thing. In addition to the fact that they are forced to either rearrange the word “sheep” or discard it, they are also exposed by an incorrect understanding of the word σκορπίξει. Relating this verb to the subject “wolf”, they understand it in the sense of “disperses”. But this is not true. At Mf. XII, 43 and Lk. XI, 23 we read: He who does not gather with Me, scatters, i.e. here σκορπ ί ζει does not plunder or scatter, but squander, waste - the verb refers not to a robber or thief, but to a guardian or steward. Also Lk. XVI, I. One man was rich, I had a steward, against whom it was reported to him that he was squandering his estate. 2 Κορ. IX, 9: ἐσκ ό ρπισεν ἔδωκεν τοῖς πένησιν distributed, distributed to the poor. And in John. X, 12 σκορπίξει means “waste, scatter,” and not “scatter,” and refers to the subject shepherd-mercenary. The mercenary sees the wolf coming, and leaves the gadfly, runs, the wolf plunders them - thus the mercenary loses the sheep. It is also noteworthy that John. X, 13 begins with the words: “and the mercenary flees,” which is not in the best lists. The insertion of these words is also forced by the incorrect understanding of the word σκορπίξει in the sense of “disperses” and its attribution to the subject wolf. So, John. XII, 12. 13 should be translated in the following translation: A hireling, not a shepherd, to whom the sheep are not his own, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and the wolf plunders them, and he loses the sheep, because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. I will not repeat the difficulties that the parable presents for commentators: they have already been pointed out more than once. I will only note those difficulties and perplexities that are caused by the accepted translation and the usual explanation. Here is the most important of them. In the expression of Art. 9 mammon of unrighteousness - unrighteous wealth (μαμων ᾶ ς τῆς ἀδικ ί ας = ἄδ ί κος μαμων ᾶ ς from Vol. II) the Russian adjective “unrighteous” corresponds to the Greek. genus. noun τῆς ἀδικ ί ας . Likewise, in Art. 8 unrighteous house builder - unfaithful builder according to gr. is also conveyed by the word τ &#813#8134; ς ἀδικ ί ας . So, the same Greek word in the same parable is translated into Russian once as unfaithful steward, and another time as unrighteous wealth. Meanwhile, the power of the parable is obvious in the repetition of one word - once when applied to a ruler, one of the sons of this age, and another time when applied to wealth, i.e. meaning the attitude of the sons of the kingdom towards wealth. In the same way, the explanation of the word unrighteous (wealth) should be applicable (of course, mutatis mutandis) to the word unfaithful (steward). More reasonable and consistent commentators understand this relationship and the (usual) explanation of “unrighteous wealth” (i.e., earthly, perishable wealth) also applies to the “steward of unrighteousness.” “The expression: steward of unrighteousness should be understood in the same sense. This does not mean that the steward was a completely dishonest man; I acted without any conscience, but that, firstly, he unjustly or negligently managed someone else’s property and, secondly, he ruled over what, in comparison with the supreme truth, is not true truth, i.e. earthly wealth." Here, in the last words, the emphasis is on what is not true - in the wealth that was entrusted to the steward, and not in the steward, which the clan contributes to. pad. “untruths”, as if untruth = mammon of untruths, as if the ruler of untruths ruled untruths. But this deception must be eliminated. case, remembering that gender. case has the meaning of an adjective, why μαμων ᾶ ς τῆς ἀδικ ί ας art. 9 – ἄδ ί κος μαμων ᾶ ς art. 11, so the mammon of unrighteousness is unrighteous wealth and (even more so) the steward of unrighteousness = unrighteous steward. It is noteworthy that in the synodal glory. translation under Mammon Art. 9 left to give birth. untruths, and with the house builder Art. The 8th gender is translated as an adjective. So, unrighteousness is in the steward, and applying the usual explanation of “unrighteous wealth” to the steward will give the concept of an “invalid, untrue steward,” but such a concept buries itself, because in the parable there is a real steward, and not “perishable and fleeting” (the usual epithets of earthly goods). Ἀδικίας must be explained equally in application to wealth and in application to the steward, but one must move not from wealth to the steward, from the unknown to the known, but vice versa, since in the parable the steward is an image, and the mammon of unrighteousness is designated, symbolized by the image. What a steward of unrighteousness is is easy to understand - it is, as translated in Russian, an unfaithful steward, i.e. not living up to the master's trust, unfaithful to the interests of the estate that was entrusted to him. In the image of the supply manager, his infidelity and his cunning are exposed, nothing more. All the guesses and reasoning of commentators about the properties of the steward and the particular features of his infidelity only (confuse the matter, obscure the schematic image 1433: The image itself is very clear - this is an unfaithful and shrewd steward. In other parables, images of a faithful slave (πιστὸςδοῦλος), i.e. a slave who has justified his trust, are given a master who is faithful to the interests of the entrusted property, who has increased the entrusted property (Matt. XXIV 45; XXV, 21; Lk. XIX, ???? XII. 42). ἀδικίας is also unfaithful wealth, but of course mutatis mutandis, since there is a person, and here a thing is unfaithful wealth, i.e., the interests of which are unfaithful, which is squandered, although the word unfaithful is used both actively and passively, both in relation to the person and in relation to the thing, although the genus maybe obj. and subject, however in Russian in the indicated sense, infidel is not used in the application of a thing (incorrect business would mean one in which a person loses, which does not live up to hope). Therefore, in Russian, the second τῆς ἀδικίας is inconvenient to translate as an adjective, but it is necessary (as in the Glorious Synod. unrighteous house-builder and mammon of untruth) to translate: unfaithful steward and wealth of unfaithfulness, mammon of unfaithfulness (= unfaithfulness to wealth). The steward and wealth are compared, the mediating member of the comparison is infidelity, sometimes active, sometimes passive: the steward is unfaithful, because he does not respect the interests of the estate, does not increase it, squanders it, and wealth is the mammon of infidelity, since they do not respect his interests, they squander it. The infidelity of the manager inevitably causes the infidelity of the estate: the manager is unfaithful (the subject of infidelity), trace. the estate is the mammon of infidelity (the object of infidelity). We are commanded in the parable: just as the steward was unfaithful to the wealth, so we must be unfaithful to the wealth. But both are unfaithful in their own way: the shrewd steward was unfaithful to the estate in earthly, selfish calculations (subjective unfaithfulness), and the sons of light must be unfaithful to wealth for the sake of the kingdom of God, why, in relation to them, subjective unfaithfulness is obscured and objective unfaithfulness appears, i.e. emphasis on the object of infidelity, – μαμων ᾶ ς τῆς ἀδικ ί ας = ἄδ ί κος μαμων ᾶ ς . So, the parable teaches: just as the unfaithful steward was shrewd in his way, so we must acquire for ourselves the eternal abodes of mammon’s unfaithfulness, i.e. disloyalty to the interests of wealth. The manager is characterized by personal use of his infidelity; for the sons of light is characteristic (in their attitude to wealth) - the objective fate of wealth; for the first - what he made for himself from wealth, for the second - what will become of the wealth in their hands. That the understanding of unfaithful wealth in the sense of unfaithfulness to wealth is true, this can be seen from what is below, in Art. 13 God and manena are presented as two masters who cannot be served at the same time: the sons of light, serving God, must hate mammon and not care about wealth. Mammon τῆς ἀδικ ί ας art. 9 is the same as hatred of mammon, carelessness about wealth v. 13 is equally disloyalty to the interests of wealth, waste of it. (For more details, see God. Vestn. May 1904, pp. 149 – 160). Originally published in God. West. 1903 Sept., Oct., and 1904 May. Philological (ignorance of the peculiarities of the New Testament Greek language) and theological ignorance raised a number of objections to me, which I easily refuted in B.V. 1904 May, July - August and September. These objections were so naive and provoked such an elementary response that the latter is not reprinted here. Also schematically you need to understand the above images of a shepherd, a mercenary, a wolf. You might be interested in: